Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.’s Empirical Analysis
304 U.S. 92 · 1938
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 23 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 346 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1942), Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)
103 federal appellate · 23 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 14 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · State of Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantationss v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · State of Virginia v. State of Tennessee
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 346 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the water of an interstate stream must be apportioned between the two States is a question of `federal common law'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be assumed that the right adjudicated by the [Colorado] decree of January 12, 1898 to the Ditch Company is a property right indefeasible so far as concerns the State of Colorado, its citizens, and any other person claiming water rights there. But the Colorado decree could not confer upon the Ditch Company rights in excess of Colorado’s share of the stream; and its share was only an equitable portion thereof.” Hinderlider v. La Plata & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 102 , 58 S.Ct. 803, 807 , 82 L.Ed. 1202 (1938).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurisdiction over controversies concerning rights in interstate streams is not different from those concerning boundaries. These have been recognized as presenting federal questions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.